Friday, May 11, 2007

Section59 does it's job this week

The defence of reasonable force was used in this week's High Court trial in Auckland which ended in manslaughter convictions.

Lawyers for Maine Ngati and Teusila Fa'asisila had used section 59 of the Crimes Act to defend charges of murder, ill-treatment and failure to provide the necessaries of life. The Crown alleged a three-year-old was beaten with a baseball bat and vacuum cleaner pipe, but the accused maintained reasonable force was used.

After the verdicts, Detective Senior Sergeant Richard Middleton said he did not want to be drawn into a political debate, but said there is no need for parents to hit their kids.

---------------------------

This is a case where the accused maintained they had used reasonable force with their 3 year old. It is quite obvious that the treatment of their child, resulting in the child dying was anything but reasonable.

Section59 does it's job once again.

So why are we getting rid of it? Because our Socialist Parliament dictates that that is what is going to happen.

They don't care that 68% - 83% of New Zealanders do not want reasonable force (smacking) to be made illegal. We voted them in to represent us, but they turn their backs and ignore us.

hey don't blame the government blame the people who set it up - ie. Christian missionaries who wanted to impose the British Parliamentary Westminster central authority system on the Maaries. if you can get over 50% you can do whatever the f*** you want

Absolute tripe. Where do you get this from? Studying NZ history at Canterbury Uni aye?

who the f*** banned smoking and drugs on campus anyway... at least they're doing the right thing in handing out condoms in 4th form health ed classes, it's their choice

Stan, I am not saying that on any issue, the majority is right. That would imply relativity, and no absolute truth.

What I am saying is:

1. I think parents/families should keep the right to opperate as entities seperate from the state, and they can decide how they raise their own children.

2. 68% to 83% of the population of New Zealand also believes this.

Regardless of whether or not the majority of New Zealanders were behind me, I would still fight this battle.

3. For all of history, it has been the duty of the parents to raise their own children, and the state has (usually) accepted and upheld this fact.

Stan, the point is not that children should be allowed to choose what unhealthy foods they eat. The point is, the Government should not be interfering at this level. It is up to the individual families - the mums and dads, and the children - when they are old enough, to make these kinds of choices.

can you not see the hypocrisy in your own posts? let me put it in a way you can understand

The National Party/United Future/Act are a complete bunch of wankers, tosspots and morons. Honestly, it boggles the mind that ANY party could even CONSIDER passing a law where 85% of voters are in support of it. Our country is run by complete nutjobs.

Homosexuals/prostitutes should keep the right to opperate as entities seperate from the state, and they can decide how they raise their own children. 68% to 83% of the population of New Zealand also believes this. Banning civil unions and prostitution is not going to reduce homosexuality and the sex trade. The good gay couples of New Zealand, these decent law-abiding citizens are exactly the people being targeted by the right wing parties.

There will be no more condoms at Avondale Primary School, and 10-year-old Georgia Wederell is not happy.

In the past the school has held a sex education lunch day each winter term, however this year the lunch has been canned, leaving Georgia disappointed.

"It's really annoying," she said.

"We should have the choice of whether we have sex before marriage or not. It should be up to us and our parents, not the Government telling kids what they can and can't do."

Georgia thought the key to healthy sex was being able to make choices, knowing the good from the bad and not being told "no" she cannot have a particular type of relationship.

"It should be up to us, not the school or anyone else. I don't like sex that much anyway, but it's the principle of it."

Georgia's dad, Mark Wederell, agreed. He said he knew some parents made unhealthy choices for their children on a regular basis, but other children shouldn't be punished for that.

"We should at least be able to have the choice," he said.

Avondale principal Mark Scown said the sex education lunch was cancelled as it "flew in the face" of the school's health curriculum.

I saw an article in the Saturday Dominion Post (Wellington) dealing with Georgia Wederell's complaint (supported by Dad, Mark Wederell) and the school principal's comment (his name was also Mark Scown). According to this version of the story, the 10 year old girl was only complaining about a weekly fish and chips lunch no longer being supplied. Nothing at all was said about condoms and sex education.

All very interesting. Do Christchurch papers get their information from "News of the World" or NZPA?

can you not see that the basis you use for all your arguments are Left-wing tactics? socialism disguised because it happens to be a right-wing issue. if the subject was sex education, prostitution or homosexuality, the very same arguments could be made and you wouldn't accept it. if you want to be a true right-winger you argue on the basis of factual justification, not "democracy" and "the people"